[jboss-user] [Remoting] - Re: Remoting 3 trunk - Ordered delivery problem

[david.lloyd@jboss.com]

The current default policy that we've agreed on for ordered execution is: Each request on a single Client instance that happens-after a previous request, will also happen-after the previous request on the server side (maybe not in the same thread though).

In practice this is a bit tricky if you want to have more than one thread on the server side per Client.  And if it comes down to it, we might have to make these guarantees optional in order to prevent performance from suffering.  One option might be to simply serialize requests that originate from the same client thread, though this might not be quite as useful.

Also, this means that (since you're using context.execute() to run a background task), it's possible that the "Executing..." lines will be out of order; this is not something I plan to change (though there are some utility classes that can help if you want ordering, like OrderedExecutor).

Now the fact that "Remote: 4" comes before "Remote: 3" is just a plain old bug. :-)  As soon as I get marshalling fixed up I'll come back to it - I think we just haven't integrated any ordering code yet.

anonymous wrote : 
  | ps.: great project but please improve the build. I could only play with it after 4 hours trying to find the right jars. (I can contribute with a maven2 build)
  | 

What problem are you having?  You should have been able to just check out trunk and type "ant", and all dependencies would be downloaded for you.  Can you start a separate topic for this?

anonymous wrote : 
  | pss: it isn't working with 1.0.0.ga xnio. Is that right?
  | 

No, XNIO 1.1.0 will be required (it's still in development but there's an API snapshot which is used for the build).

anonymous wrote : 
  | psss: I am receiving a log warn saying that the client is leaking. What is it? 
  | 

The client is leaking. :-)  Actually there are many bits that all have to be closed and right now I can't say with 100% certainty that it's all working correctly at the moment.  So for now I'd disregard these messages.  Once I finish my current tasks, I'm going to be writing a bunch of tests which will hopefully flush this stuff out.

anonymous wrote : 
  | pssss: Sometimes I am getting this exception:
  | 

Hm, that's not good.  I'll have to come up with a slightly different executor strategy for these things.  Care to file a bug (set "fix for" to 3.0.0.Beta1)? :-)

View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4176790#4176790

Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&p=4176790